List agent groups in Zendesk with pagination. Use to retrieve group names and IDs for analyzing or managing support team structure.
List agent groups in Zendesk
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| per_page | No | Number of groups per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the Zendesk scope - nothing about pagination defaults, ordering, or response shape. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. 'List agent groups in Zendesk' is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with two fully documented optional params and safety covered by annotations, almost everything needed is present. The minor gap is the absence of an output schema, which leaves the description with some responsibility for the response shape that it does not address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both page and per_page carry descriptions, including the per_page max of 100. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agent groups') with a scope qualifier ('in Zendesk'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_group (single retrieval) and from list_* tools targeting other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use list_groups versus get_group for single-group lookup, and no indication of pagination strategies. Usage is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.